Work without Vocation

Last updated on: August 27, 2008 at 9:59 am By Gene Veith

Thanks to EconJeff for alerting me to this article in the Wall Street Journal by a Christian writer and some time WORLD contributor Tony Woodlief. In trying to figure out how to make his kids enjoy work, he dismisses Adam Smith for reducing work to making money and finds nothing from churches that helps. He finally finds his answer in Karl Marx who praises creative labor! The author COMPLETELY MISSES the doctrine of vocation!

Maybe churches can help. But Thomas Aquinas fretted that work distracted men from God. Protestants like Billy Graham, meanwhile, see workplaces as venues for evangelism but say little about the inherent value of labor. When every plutocrat who runs for president must manufacture middle-class roots for himself, wealth is no longer proof of piety. And work itself, many pastors claim, is destined to be miserable because of God’s curse after Adam ate the forbidden fruit. So work is unpleasant, and its fruits are suspect. No wonder Concordia University’s Center for Faith and Business, among a growing crowd of organizations devoted to fusing Christianity and capitalism, sums up this theology of work in the last of its Ten Commandments for the Workplace: “Be satisfied with what you have.”

Max Weber is rolling in his grave.
Ironically, it’s that scruffy, godless rabble-rouser reviled by capitalists — Karl Marx — who offers a helpful work philosophy where traditional fonts of conservative wisdom fail. Marx saw humans as naturally creative: “free conscious activity constitutes the species-character of man.” Furthermore, humans want to craft loveliness: “Man . . . produces in accordance with the laws of beauty.” . . .

Sure, Marx advocated common ownership of property, which he might have been cured of had he observed children around a bag of cookies. And there is the fact that millions of humans have been enslaved or slaughtered by his intellectual progeny. But toxic governance prescriptions aside, Marx certainly had his finger on a truth, I think, about humans and labor. Left-leaning theologians like N.T. Wright and Miroslav Volf, meanwhile, agree that work should be seen not as a pietist’s grim duty or as an avenue to wealth but as a way of participating in God’s creative order. Liberal Tom Lutz’s “Doing Nothing,” a book that ostensibly sets out to justify Slackerism, likewise has a beef not with work but with purposeless work.

I’m a small-government guy, but when it comes to a work ethic, I find myself siding with the left. Humans need work, and they need to see that their work has a purpose. Come to think of it, you’ll hear that from any of America’s countless business gurus. We’re all Marxists now.

How can the doctrine of vocation be so invisible? Tony, send me your address via my WORLD e-mail address, and I’ll send you a copy of my book “God at Work” to free you from your Marxist shackles.

Premium Content

Those two doctrines of vocation

Last updated on: July 25, 2008 at 8:46 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Here is what I was referring to in my coffee post: Calvin’s doctrine of vocation tends to emphasize working for the glory of God. That CAN result in doing things in isolation, a perfectionism that can be seen as “doing something for God,” possibly degenerating into a kind of work righteousness (as opposed to “works righteousness”). It CAN degenerate into scorn and ill-treatment of those human beings who are actually around us, resenting family members or customers for getting in the way of our work.

Luther, on the other hand, emphasized that vocation does not presume to serve God; rather, it serves our neighbor. Actually, God Himself serves our neighbor through our hands when we work in our callings. Thus, the focus in vocation must always be on the neighbor whom we are to love and serve.

Of course, we are to both glorify God and serve our neighbors, not playing these off against each other. The way God commands us to glorify Him is precisely to love and serve our neighbors, so these are not really in opposition. And, as was said, loving and serving our neighbor should include giving him the very best we can, and not just fulfilling him his possibly unworthy desires.

Right, we don’t know whether or not the barista in question is a Christian whose obsession with excellence was motivated by a desire to glorify God. I have, however, known Christians who pursued their work out of a religious motive but without regard of their neighbors. Also, there is no reason why Luther’s emphasis could not be shared by someone of some other theology, though his notion that God usually works through means–and ordinary, physical means at that–might not be accepted by hyperspiritual theologies.

Premium Content

The coffee maker and two doctrines of vocation

Last updated on: July 24, 2008 at 8:09 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

More thoughts on coffee and on the bigger issues of vocation and striving for excellence. Consider this article on really, really good coffee houses:

Lana Labermeier, who opened Big Bear Cafe in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Northwest Washington in June 2007, shares Gwathmey’s attention to detail. Tables and couches at this cozy neighborhood spot are filled night and day with computer-toting regulars who come for the coffee, take up residence because of the Wi-Fi and stay for the day, enjoying the artfully prepared, if simple, hot and cold sandwiches.

Labermeier, 27, who also buys beans from Counter Culture, exudes a laid-back friendliness, but her standards regarding coffee and all things culinary are unbending. She doesn’t stock artificial sweeteners, for example, and finds sugar unnecessary. “Our milk is sweet, and our coffee isn’t bitter, so give it a try without sugar,” she says.

She offers only whole milk; no skinny lattes in her cafe. She is also adamant that the biggest brewed coffee she serves is 16 ounces. She won’t serve 20-ounce coffees, for reasons that she preferred not to discuss for fear that they would make her sound “snobby.”
“A beautiful coffee ought to be savored,” she said.

Customers do not always appreciate such purism. At Arlington’s Murky Coffee, another Counter Culture outlet with a fanatical commitment to quality, a brouhaha erupted last week after a barista refused a customer’s request for a triple espresso served over ice, saying ice would undermine the integrity of the drink. The fight escalated, epithets were uttered, and customer Jeff Simmermon wrote about the dust-up on his blog ( http://www.andiamnotlying.com), which got 100,000 hits in less than a week; owner Nicholas Cho wrote about this tempest in a coffee cup on Murky’s Web site, too.

Purism might make some customers angry, but it can pay off in the cup.

You perhaps heard of the brouhaha–make that brewhaha–that erupted in the blogosphere over that customer who ranted and raved on his blog about how that barista refused his request for ice in his espresso. Let us consider this issue and these examples of purists in their coffee-making in light of the doctrine of vocation.

I happen to admire these artists of coffee who keep the integrity of their work and the quality of their product instead of selling out to commercialism and consumerism. On the other hand, I think this may provide for a good example of the difference between the Reformed approach to vocation and the Lutheran approach. Does one make coffee (or do whatever it is you do) to the glory of God [the Reformed view]? Or to love and serve your neighbor [the Lutheran view]? Do you see the difference that is going to make?

Premium Content

The vocation of vacation

Last updated on: July 5, 2008 at 8:39 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Friends, we’re en route to Oklahoma, where much of the time we will be at beautiful Lake Tenkiller, far away from the internet and probably even cell phone coverage. So I’ll be taking a break from blogging, though I’ll be back a week from Monday. We’ve had a big jump in readership, with the “vocation of the movie critic” bringing us lots of new readers. For you, don’t lose your new habit of checking in with this blog. Explore the archives, which store many fine discussions that you will still enjoy. I’ve left you a few topics to keep you busy. Do monitor the “Testimony of an Atheist” post, which is featuring some deep, honest, and insightful discussions. I will really be incommunicado out at the lake, so if anything happens in the world that I should know about, tell me about it in a comment here. God’s blessings until we meet again!

Premium Content

The vocation of the critic

Last updated on: June 19, 2008 at 8:58 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Some thoughts about the controversy over movie reviews that we discussed yesterday, occasioned by the Christianity Today critic giving “Sex & the City” three stars. . .(This blog seems to have become THE place to talk about this, with even one of the parties to the controversy, Ted Slater of Focus on the Family weighing in, as well as other movie critics. I really appreciate that, Mr. Slater and the rest of you, for your stimulating discussion.) But here are some of my principles for reviewing:

(1) A review is not an advertisement or an endorsement but an analysis. Just condemning or just praising a movie or other work of art is not enough. A good review should yield understanding, not just of the work but of what the work is about.

(2) The word “good” has different senses. It can be used in a moral sense (“helping the flood victims was a good deed”) or an aesthetic sense (“that movie had good acting”). A movie can be good aesthetically and bad morally. Or, to bring the other absolutes into the discussion, a work of art that is true and good may not be beautiful; or one that is beautiful and good may not be true; or any of the other possible combinations. Part of the critic’s job is to sort all of that out.

(3) Not everyone should watch every movie, and thanks to the vocation of the movie critic, they don’t have to. Recall the principle that what is lawful for one vocation may not be lawful for someone without that vocation (e.g., soldiers, police officers, and executioners are called to do what civilians may not). Just as physicians must deal with repulsive diseases, critics may sometimes have to deal with repulsive movies. Not that even critics may fall into sin. If watching a movie is an occasion for sin, the critic should stay away, but experienced professionals usually get pretty detached, like a physician operating on a naked body. But if you can’t be detached, this may not be your calling.

(4) In the case at issue, Mr. Slater reviewed the review in a way that was overly inflammatory. Even if the critic is going to condemn something, there is a right and an effective way to go about it. The purpose of every vocation, as we have discussed, is to love and service to the neighbor, so a sense of compassion can make negative criticism sink in more. And, again, the goal of a review should be to increase understanding, both of truth (as the Focus review does, rightly, in condemning sin) and the work being discussed. While still attacking the review for minimizing the movie’s sexual immorality, the Focus on the Family critic could have zeroed in on what the review both discusses and exemplifies: the plight of single Christians–such as the reviewer herself who raises these issues–who get so little support from the church and are thrown back to the resources of the world, such as “Sex & the City.”

(5) The original review could also have given us more analysis, which might have defused some of the controversy. We are told that the movie has the characters wrestling with relationships. Tell us more about the content of those struggles. What, I think, emerges (based on snippets of the TV series that I have seen) is that what these young women really want is MARRIAGE, and yet their promiscuity undermines that quest. They treat men like they treat their shoes, as consumer accessories for their own gratification, and yet they want much more. What they yearn for is, in fact, God’s design. With that kind of specific analysis, the reviewer could fully engage the movie–praising its artistic qualities, taking it seriously by arguing with it, and leaving the reader with understanding, not just of the movie, but of issues of truth, goodness, and beauty.

Premium Content

Vocational bootcamp

Last updated on: April 2, 2008 at 7:25 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

What a good show was the premiere of the new season of “Hell’s Kitchen”! Gordon Ramsey this time takes a whole crew of incompetents. How can he pick any of them to run one of his restaurants at a salary of a quarter of a million dollars? The contestants had to prepare their “signature dishes,” one of which was a scallop and venison tartare (a.k.a. raw shellfish chopped up with raw deer) mixed up with white chocolate! An awful-sounding concoction that actually made Chef Ramsey throw up! And when they had to do the restaurant, no one took leadership, everybody kept botching the recipes, and the service was so slow that the customers all left before any of the entrees were served!

And yet the contestants were SO full of themselves, so prideful and diva-like. They were full of self-esteem. This show has the virtues of the early episodes of “American Idol,” to show the world that there ARE standards of excellence and that a narcissistic ego is no substitute for a work ethic. The wretched singers and cooks are all full of themselves, rather than concerned to love and serve their neighbors outside of themselves.

Now we’ll see if Gordon Ramsey–who throws rubber-cooked chicken against the wall and squeezes the grease out of the noodles with his hands and rubs the noses of his charges into their own incompetence–can make something out of these characters.

Notice that this is not just about cooking or singing or these TV shows. It has to do with the consequences of relativism, weakness of character as encouraged by our culture of self-affirmation, and the loss of the doctrine of vocation.

Premium Content